Ever since Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley dropped a hint dur­ing the Bud­get de­bate ear­li­er this month about his pos­si­ble re­tire­ment from ac­tive pol­i­tics, there has been a flur­ry of spec­u­la­tion about his like­ly suc­ces­sor as PNM po­lit­i­cal leader.

All that fo­cus on who might be next to lead the coun­try’s old­est po­lit­i­cal par­ty ex­pos­es the ab­sence of a clear strat­e­gy for re­place­ment plan­ning or pass­ing on lead­er­ship.

Through­out the PNM’s his­to­ry, there has nev­er been a smooth pass­ing of the ba­ton be­cause there have sel­dom been clear fron­trun­ners for the po­si­tion. Fall­outs with the po­lit­i­cal leader have re­sult­ed in de­mo­tions and even out­right ban­ish­ment for one or two who had been hand­picked for the po­si­tion.

When the PNM’s founder Dr Er­ic Williams died in of­fice in March 1981, Pres­i­dent El­lis Clarke had to choose the new Prime Min­is­ter from among the par­ty’s three deputy po­lit­i­cal lead­ers — George Cham­bers, Ka­malud­din Mo­hammed and Er­rol Ma­habir.

Al­though Cham­bers got the nod, he was not re­gard­ed as the most se­nior or ex­pe­ri­enced of the can­di­dates at the time and his se­lec­tion came as a sur­prise to many.

The par­ty faced an­oth­er lead­er­ship chal­lenge af­ter its blis­ter­ing 33-3 de­feat to the NAR in 1986, when Patrick Man­ning, Mor­ris Mar­shall and Muriel Don­awa Mc David­son were the on­ly PNM MPs left stand­ing.

Years lat­er, when Man­ning was re­placed as po­lit­i­cal leader by Row­ley, af­ter the par­ty was de­feat­ed by the Peo­ple’s Part­ner­ship coali­tion in 2010, a de­mand by mem­bers for new lead­er­ship brought about that sud­den change at the helm.

En­er­gy Min­is­ter Stu­art Young is cur­rent­ly wide­ly re­gard­ed as Row­ley’s heir ap­par­ent and has held some key po­si­tions with­in the Cab­i­net and par­ty. That spec­u­la­tion has in­creased in re­cent months be­cause of late, he has been cho­sen to act as Prime Min­is­ter in­stead of Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert.

Suc­ces­sion plan­ning al­so seems to be lack­ing with­in the UNC, where there have been some con­tentious lead­er­ship races, no­tably the in­ter­nal elec­tion in which the par­ty’s founder, Bas­deo Pan­day, was de­feat­ed by Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar in 2010.

Since then, Per­sad-Bisses­sar has fend­ed off some chal­lenges for lead­er­ship but has not named a suc­ces­sor.

This ap­par­ent re­luc­tance by the lead­ers of the main po­lit­i­cal par­ties to han­dle suc­ces­sion is­sues in a man­ner that is ac­count­able, co­op­er­a­tive and trans­par­ent is con­cern­ing, since Row­ley and Per­sad-Bisses­sar are both in their 70s.

But age shouldn’t be the on­ly rea­son to pri­ori­tise suc­ces­sion plan­ning. Iden­ti­fy­ing some­one ca­pa­ble of tak­ing over as a po­lit­i­cal leader should be an in­te­gral part of any par­ty’s plan for sus­tain­abil­i­ty and un­hin­dered con­ti­nu­ity. That is the best way to en­sure there are qual­i­fied and ex­pe­ri­enced can­di­dates avail­able to step in to fill the void when a leader leaves of­fice.

Or­der­ly arrange­ments for the trans­fer of pow­er can be an in­di­ca­tor of sta­bil­i­ty, which is prefer­able at this stage in T&T’s de­vel­op­ment to avoid­ance of change, which of­ten seems to be the case.

The PNM and the UNC are not short of ca­pa­ble and ex­pe­ri­enced politi­cians ca­pa­ble of serv­ing as un­der­stud­ies to the par­ty lead­ers. At present, nei­ther has a sin­gle per­son func­tion­ing in that deputy po­si­tion and nei­ther has re­vealed any clear suc­ces­sion plans.

That could make for prob­lem­at­ic tran­si­tions if a po­lit­i­cal leader has to step down for one rea­son or an­oth­er.